Karl

No, I'm not Aristotelian. We haven't had democracy for a long time and even when we had an approximation of it, it still wasn't true democracy. This is what collectivist crony fascism looks like.

If you don't understand what helicopter QE will do then you won't be prepared. It is much worse for the poor. I said it was last gasp desperation, it is of a failing state and doomed currency. It will throw pensioners and savers under a bus, the wealthy will already have themselves in a safety zone. It's what happens when the straw sucks up the last bit of drink left in the glass. After that will be the big reset. Probably the end of paper currency completely. If it has torn down the global economy they will install a world currency.

Only the person who has missed an opportunity would deny they have missed the opportunity :-)

I can see that any further explanation is pointless. I hope you get all you deserve. Certainly Germany did.

The Tao is named, it isn't defined. You should stop learning and give it a chance :-)

Too late. I've read the text. :-)

Then perhaps you have missed an opportunity.

He isn't a Taoist and neither is there anything in his essay that suggests it. However, I have just read the same text he obviously read and clearly it does suggest a libertarian approach. I'm presuming you have all read that text (at least the translation as there probably isn't many of us that can read ancient languages) and it's not as though it's exactly difficult to understand the parts which are concerned directly with rulers, taxation, Liberty, use of force, interventionism. The rest is more obscure as is the way with ancient texts where context, time and language are an issue.

That isn't a question I can answer. I can only observe the reaction and not the thought that preceded it.

That may well be true, but Rothbard is hardly just 'a writer'. He is a well researched historian, philosopher and economist. He will have read the texts thoroughly to have reached that conclusion. I think this is more about the challenge to your own beliefs which is ridiculous as he doesn't challenge contemporary Taoism in any sense. As I read it Lao Tze is quoted by many anti-authoritarians so this isn't exactly a new discovery.

What do you think would be the result of 'helicopter money'? QE was never going to work and economic 'stimulus' is the same old Keynesian thinking that has got us into this mess. It's important to understand that fiscal stimulus will always create economic activity. It will create jobs and an enormous buzz of creative activity, but all of it is malinvestment. Eventually that malinvestment will unwind and with it will go all those newly created jobs, businesses and production. Money isn't production. It is the market that decides on what goods and services are required. If you gum up the works by destroying the value of money then the eventual result will be an enormous crash. It's also important to understand that Governments do not produce anything at all. There are no money multipliers. Therefore fiscal profligacy is simply taking a share of the production and moving it about. Instead of the producers deciding where to spend their production, the government decides instead. There is no market function in Government decisions as they are a monopoly and they take and spend without care to loss or profit. Of course if the Government print and spend it will create the same momentary economic boost, but eventually it will end in the same way as the QE to Wall Street, or helicopter money to the people. The result is always some form of inflation. Current QE has boosted the wealth of the wealthiest by increasing asset values and stocks. It has created lots of jobs in a market which should not exist. Meanwhile this printing is stealing the wealth of the middle class and savers. It has created no improvement on Main Street. QE helicopter money is the final act of desperation. If you give everybody £100K to spend then what exactly do you think will be the result ? Prices will rise as more money chases fewer goods. Those who get the money spent first will gain by seeing their purchases rise in value. It will make manufacturers invest to keep up with the new demand until the monetary stimulus ends. Then comes the crash. The only way to keep it going is more printing which drives prices higher again. Some discover that their money isn't buying anything. The worst thing is that manufacturers are now investing where they would not normally invest. The crash is catastrophic. It's the same if the government spends it. Currently the UK is spending £50/70bn more than it receives in tax. We have had QE, subsidised home/ business/student loans as has the USA. None of the fiscal stimulus has resulted in much at all. Currently it is requiring £17 of government spending to increase GDP by £1. We have had very little austerity at all- more delayed/ reduced state employee pay rises. Eventually we will have to pay the piper. Our chancellor has promised to cut this deficit, but he promised that during his previous 5 years and has done virtually nothing, it would be a shock if he actually intends to do anything during this five year term. I think reality will catch up with hm before he has time to implement the promised cuts. It wasn't austerity that created the ongoing problem in the 1930s but the new deal and state spending. The crash was a result-as always-of monetary expansion. Easy credit, cheap money. Here's a challenge: https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Americas%20Great%20Depression_3.pdf

Not at all. Rothbard isn't discussing Taoism-only it origin. I think the New Testament and the story of Jesus is similar. Except Jesus was a lot more anarchic and revolutionary. Rothbard is saying Lao Tzu decided on a kind of introversion as opposed to any form of active revolution. He wasn't trying to explain the methodology of Taoism. I think you are being quite unfair with your comment 'propping up beliefs'. Every philosophy and philosopher naturally stands on the shoulders of those who have gone before and adds their own observations to the mix. It's one reason why I could never pick a philosophy as being 'perfect'. I find agreement in some very diverse philosophies which I might generally disagree with, and some disagreements with those that come very close to philosophies closest to my own. Isn't everything that is creative this way ? As an observation, I see that many people who don't think this way seem to require a more rigid philosophy and practice. They follow a more Platonic path and are less tolerant of philosophical diversity. Generally it is those who support a more totalitarian, collectivist view point and are pointed towards socialism in some form. Those who are more diverse are more Aristotlian and democratic. They are more flexible and less polarised, much less militant and aggressive.

Yet laws do tell you what you must do and these laws are made by others.

Rothbard was a true anarchist. It is a Rothbardian necessity to oppose all government constructs in whatever sense.

That makes Lao Tzu a Randian Objectivist :-) which is exactly what I think. Rand had her imaginary 'Galts Gulch' and Lao Tzu had his practices. Both, at heart is Liberty by retreatist individualism. It is 'in effect' head in the sand thinking. Rothbard was a true anarchist. He was of the belief that there should be no state at all. Rand believed in Minarchy ( some state/government but not supported through taxation but lottery/charity). I think something other. There are people who wish to live under and subject others to total collectivism. I think these people should have their wish, as should minarchists and anarchists. No one should have the right to impose their will against another person. I don't object to communists or fascists as long as they don't impose their idealism upon my life.

Less words more practice.

What are you practising for ?

I think you might find you are paying for their membership of it.

Then it fits in well with our present discussion :-) One moment a cloud looks like a bird and the next it's an unassociated shape-but always defined, conceptually as a cloud. As I was going up the stairs I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today, I wish that man would go away. (Antagonish) We passed upon the stair He spoke of was and when Although I wasn't there He said I was a friend. ( David Bowie-the man who sold the world).

I strive for incompleteness and I have never been anything other than self realised-I just wouldn't allow myself to discover it. :-) Everyone is self realised-we were born that way-it's a matter of acceptance, which is the harder part. If you think you have got some where, or are going somewhere, then you made a mistake. You already are and have always been. "To be the rock and not the roll".

No, that's not allowed :-) Your words reminded me of the lyric 'and she wants to be sure 'cos you know how words have two meanings' . Then I read the entire thing and it means something to me because that's how I interpret it, but it's not necessarily the same thing to you.

It found you the day you were born. The only choice you can make is which side you will take. Even in the last moments of life that remains forever true. What you do today ripples throughout history for all time.

"'Cos you know sometimes words have two meanings" Stairway to heaven. There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold And she's buying a stairway to heaven. When she gets there she knows, if the stores are all closed With a word she can get what she came for. Ooh, ooh, and she's buying a stairway to heaven. There's a sign on the wall but she wants to be sure 'Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings. In a tree by the brook, there's a songbird who sings, Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven. Ooh, it makes me wonder, Ooh, it makes me wonder. There's a feeling I get when I look to the west, And my spirit is crying for leaving. In my thoughts I have seen rings of smoke through the trees, And the voices of those who stand looking. Ooh, it makes me wonder, Ooh, it really makes me wonder. And it's whispered that soon, if we all call the tune, Then the piper will lead us to reason. And a new day will dawn for those who stand long, And the forests will echo with laughter. If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now, It's just a spring clean for the May queen. Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run There's still time to change the road you're on. And it makes me wonder. Your head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't know, The piper's calling you to join him, Dear lady, can you hear the wind blow, and did you know Your stairway lies on the whispering wind? And as we wind on down the road Our shadows taller than our soul. There walks a lady we all know Who shines white light and wants to show How everything still turns to gold. And if you listen very hard The tune will come to you at last. When all are one and one is all To be a rock and not to roll. And she's buying a stairway to heaven.

:-) The war has already started.

It absolutely isn't about having things the way that want, the exact opposite. Having a cup of tea to avoid a war is not compromise, being able to talk and reason is always preferable to violent action, but if you have war in your heart, then there will be war. This is the nature of man and our faculty to reason is what sets us apart. We have in thus the power to destroy everything or to rise to incredible heights and there is nothing between those two choices but reason. A compromise is between two sliding scales. It is between genocide and limited murder. The scales always slide and a few murders become a crowd, then a few thousand then before we know what's happened we are murdering millions in gas chambers. It's best not to take the compromised view. Again, this is entirely a personal stance. This is how I am and not simply an ideal.